Thursday, September 27, 2007

What Are We Teaching Our Children?

Traditional teaching styles conflict greatly with new ideas of what education should be developing. Old styles teach a rigid design where students learn and teachers teach. Students are treated more as animals whose urges and instincts are meant to be penned up. And, it is those student who successfully succumb to these guidelines that are most valued. Subservience. Yet, these actions, based on these systems do not correlate with action that must be taken in the real world. Schools would stress fact memorization and forgo independent thought. It does not matter why the book tells you that the Civil War happened, only that what it is said should be taken for truth unquestionably. Newer teaching styles promote input and break down the wall erected between the students and their teachers.

I believe that school should have purpose. It is not simply a daycare for children. It should be an institute of learning. Learning requires the free exchange of ideas. Therefore, schools should require no less. Questioning the knowledge of the textbook or a paper or even of the teacher should not be seen as detrimental to the learning process. Rigid guidelines and tome-like study guides and notebooks do not create learning they inhibit it. Learning can only take place when a person in interested in what they are trying to understand. Therefore, schools must find ways to cater to the interests of each of its students. An interested student will want to learn. A learning student will give school a purpose.

School must provide students with the necessary tools to lead a successful life. It is necessary to be successful in life to be able to think for oneself. How could you choose a good career, or have the courage and ability to speak up about something that you're interested in, or be happy at all if you do not have the ability to make decisions. Old teaching styles inhibit the growth of thinking and decision-making skills. Class is structured as a one-way street whereby the teacher conveys truth like a military instructor. Likewise, class is set up rigidly using bells to signify the end of each section and the point at which students must as if by magic change the station and turn to a new subject. This sort of division is unnecessary and illogical. Man's brain is not set up to switch gears so precisely. Such techniques foster boredom and alienation in the student's mind. Perhaps most importantly however, it turns them into creatures of habit. You move from class to class without thinking. It becomes increasingly easy to lose yourself in following this method.

In addition to this debate there is the issue of the student-teacher relationship. Under the old method, students were treated on a lower level than teachers. Respect dictated this form similar to the parent-child relationship in a highly autocratic family. The problem with this method is its impersonality. Students are not going to respect a teacher just because they sit up straight and sit in silence any more than a child will like a parent who requests the same. Therefore, part of a teacher's job is made self-defeating here. A teacher's responsibility is to their students, for their well-being, both educative and personal. A student will not come to their teacher if they have a problem if they do not trust them. However, if the teacher were to respect the student as a person and to respect their opinions and questions in addition to keeping them on the same level as themselves, then the student will be more likely to come for help if they need it.

In short, it is more profitable for the student in the long run, not to be taught using the older methods. Nonsensical regulation (hats, gum, etc.) belittle the independence and intelligence of the student. These regulations foster ill-will towards the administration and to the learning process in general. Likewise, students will grow to resent a teacher who does not treat them properly. Then, they will not be apt to come to the teacher when they have a problem and certainly they will not respect the teacher in return enough to bother to pay attention in their class. To be a successful teacher one must treat all students carefully, understanding them as people and not as naïve or belittled representations of future adults. They must be given the benefit of the doubt, at least unless they prove otherwise, that they are capable of acting mature, learning, and conducting themselves in a civil manner. To do less is to do a disservice to the learning process.

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Take One

So yesterday I went on my first of five in-class observations. I visited a 12th grade AP US history class and then a 9th grade world history course. I went into it without much trepidation, probably due to the fact that I find it hard to feel nervous on four hours sleep and after an hour driving.

The school was immaculate, thus quickly putting mine to shame. It was a clean cut newer building. The people were great. I really mean that. The 12th grade class that I went to fit into the usual mold for AP students, but the 9th grade class I visited was head and shoulders above any standard level 9th grade history class that I have ever seen. The difference between my high school and it's atmosphere is the difference between please and thank-you and bitching and moaning. It was just awesome. Teacher and student alike brought a positive attitude to their presence there, even for a Monday. And even if they didn't want to be there it was commiserative they were all in it together. It seemed truly remarkable to me. Even if it be the exception to the rule, a better place to begin could not be found.

The teachers were equally as such. The atmosphere they fostered was one tending towards relaxed discussion where input seemed more free-flowing than it did in a traditional format in my high school. Rarely did one raise hands, rather the format tended towards communal discussion. This fostered a more comfortable class and thus a better learning environment.

At any rate, my decision to pursue a teaching career has been validated by this, my first observation. That's all for now; I need to decompress.

Saturday, August 25, 2007

Letter to the Editor

Monday, January 21, 2009
Dear Department of Misplaced Items,
I hope that this letter finds you well. I, unfortunately, am not so well. I seemed to have misplaced a few household items. I would not be bothering you about them, if it were not for the fact that I assumed they would have turned up by now. I hope that you can help me locate them; they are of vital importance, and I have reason to believe that they have been stolen from me.

I approach you not without trepidation however, as I know your legendary ability to find lost objects, and too the complexities of your department to which occasionally one can contribute the lose of ones own self. But too, what I have lost track of is equally legendary, difficult to recover, and perhaps more so invaluable.

You see, dear sir or madam, that I seem to have lost my rights, and I cannot for the life of me understand where they have gone to. The situation has become grave, oh finder of misplaced items, for just yesterday, upon questioning my own kin as to the location of my rights, I was shocked to find that they did not recall my ever having rights. Indeed, they seemed a bit standoffish about the whole idea, as if I had uttered some dirty epithet.

I know that you are busy kind sir, genteel ma'am, so if undertaking my loss is too great at this time, I will certainly understand. If even a hundred others have lost that which I have, then you must be quite busy. Perhaps you could simply explain to me a few things regarding my loss in the hopes that such a thing need not happen again...

Why, kind person, does it seem that rights are such a scarce commodity? I should surely think that everyone would like at least a few. They seem so able to multiply. Yet, we lose them so easily. We do not fight to keep them safe from thieves and bandits. Quite frankly, I am baffled as to why this could be.

Why do we let our rights lie around gathering dust? Why do we shun those who wear their rights proudly? Why do we belittle their causes when, you see, they are fighting for all people's rights? It seems they do us a great service. Why then are they deemed dangerous? Crazy even? Was our great nation not built by people just like them?

And finally, my friend, I have noticed a new trend that I thought, if you do not already know of it, that I should tell you about. As of late, it seems that many people have been set to trade in their rights for material goods or monetary gain? They tell us that it brings us safety, but I cannot believe them. Safety from what exactly? What use is safety if we have not the rights that this safety is supposed to protect?
Thank-you for your time,
Guy Crestfallen
---------------------------------------
Monday, August 25, 2009
Dear Guy Crestfallen,
Thank you for your expressed interest in contacting the Department. However, due to reasons concerning national security, your rights have been transferred overseas to compel others to see our vision of democracy and our core Christian values and will not likely return soon, or realistically in the same shape that you had left them.

It is with greatest regret that I inform you that your rights are being, not sold off onto another, but that your government has seen the need to force them onto them. It is as if they do not want them. They are confused and need to be shown the light. But there is consolation for you. Perhaps you would like to participate in our Rights' Exchange Program (REP). We have many old sets of our new friends' rights now, the same as they have yours.

Please allow me to review the package deal before you decided... I know how much you loved your freedoms, but they are in short supply amongst our new allies and we simply cannot spare them for everyone. However, in lieu of speech, press, petition, assembly, and a few others you have likely already forgotten, which are in the shortest of supply, you will receive the freedom to practice the new Christian state religion and the right to the safety promised by your illustrious and benevolent Commander and Chief, the great American President, George Walker Bush.

Fear not change good sir. In time you will come to miss your old rights less and less and become accustomed to your new better ones. You probably cannot remember them all anymore anyways and certainly you cannot recite them word for word or understand the sheer context of everything that was haphazardly and foolishly promised oh so many years ago.

Just know that your government is looking out for your safety by sending your rights overseas. When this time of extraordinary crisis ends, trust in your government to allocate you a new set of rights. Do not worry, patriotic citizen, remain silent to our enemies' condemnation of your Great Leader and hold your head high for you are doing it for the betterment of our free society.
Rest assured honest patriot,
The Department of Unnecessary Items